Dockery: Bring back parole in Florida

The idea of parole has not been particularly popular in Florida with the public or with elected officials who want to appear tough on crime.

Parole is the release of an inmate prior to serving their full court-imposed sentence. While out of the prison confines, the parolee is subject to strict conditions of supervision. If those conditions are violated, the parolee could return to prison.

If a parolee reoffended while out on early release, elected officials often took the blame. To avoid this criticism, the Legislature decided to make inmates serve a greater portion of their sentences.

Over the past few decades, criminal justice laws have changed frequently and drastically. Getting rid of parole was one of the early changes. Requiring that inmates serve 85 percent of their sentences was another.

We still technically have parole in Florida, but the courts have not granted it for some time. In fact, the Florida Legislature abolished parole for most crimes in 1983 and phased it out for the rest by 1995.

To illustrate: Of the 101,000 adult inmates in our state prisons, fewer than 5,000 are still eligible for parole. Having been sentenced prior to 1995, they’ve spent a considerable portion of their lives behind bars.

Even though they are parole-eligible, fewer and fewer are getting out. In 1983, there were 3,860 inmates paroled. Ten years later the number was down to 166. And in 2013, only 27 were granted parole — less than one percent of those eligible.

The agency responsible for these decisions is the Florida Commission on Offender Review — formerly the Florida Parole Commission.

Not everyone is happy with the FCOR’s reluctance to grant parole to those eligible. They point out that these inmates have been in prison 30 years or more, cost taxpayers the most to house, have served their time, and are the most rehabilitated and the least likely to commit another crime.

They also fault the FCOR for refusing to consider mitigating circumstances, having their minds made up prior to hearings, giving the same excuse for denying parole and triggering a seven-year period before the inmate’s next hearing.

It is difficult to understand how some of the parole requests were denied. One particular case seemed so egregious that I sent a letter of support along with several other former and current legislators. Despite community and church support, she was again denied.

Attempts to reform or expand the parole system haven’t garnered much support in the Legislature.

One bill that failed would have allowed inmates convicted of “non-homicide” offenses when they were 15 or younger to be eligible for parole if they had served at least eight years. It would have affected 68 inmates.

Advocates for parole reform recommend addressing the disparity in proposed release dates, allowing inmates to attend their own parole hearings, and including differing views in the hearings.

Tena Pate, leaving the prisoner-release commission after 13 years including service as chairman, said the No. 1 consideration in parole decisions is that the inmate being considered no longer poses a risk to public safety.

The commission is supposed to use objective parole guidelines to determine the risk level. Some of the factors considered are the nature of the crime, arrest history, disciplinary reports and substance abuse history.

It still strikes me as highly subjective.

Consider this. In 2013 there were 35,670 inmates released from Florida’s prisons — and only 27 of them were paroled. Were they all less of a risk than the others eligible for parole?

Attitudes are changing across the nation on mass incarceration. Smart Justice reform efforts are gaining steam and becoming increasingly bipartisan. Smart Justice is a comprehensive approach to help former offenders live as law-abiding citizens once they get out of prison, reducing recidivism, making our communities safer and easing the burden on taxpayers.

Advocates are taking a hard look at tough-on-crime laws that have led to unjust sentences, over-incarceration and wasteful spending.

Here in Florida we’ve had our share of those, including 85 percent time served, abolishing sentencing guidelines, mandatory minimum sentences, and removing judicial discretion through one-size-fits-all mandates like Three Strikes and 10-20-Life legislation.

Smart justice requires judicial discretion to address the unique character of each case and the mitigating factors. Every case is different and judges should be given a full array of options—including the discretionary use of parole.

Paula Dockery is a syndicated columnist who served in the Florida Legislature for 16 years as a Republican from Lakeland.